The possibility of an atomic explosion in an atomic reactor is well hidden and ignored by common science, mostly servants and getting direct feed from the atomic industry.

Dear Readers: There is a mightier power than an earthquake. It’s called “nuclear explosion”. And it can happen in each reactor. No reactor withstands this. If the burst protection of a reactor can not include an explosion in a reactor, then this contradicts the construction specifications. No reactor should have been built. So, every operating license is an illusion and illegal. Therefore, the nuclear explosion in a reactor is denied by the nuclear industry, so that the reactors be allowed to continue and can be built.

From the book “History of the British nuclear industry” by Margaret Gowing, “Britain and Atomic Energy”, on page 382 the former U.S. water-cooled graphite reactor at Hanford is described:
“To be built in view of the risks of an accident, the reactor is at an isolated location. Because water absorbs neutrons, and when the water flow is interrupted and the control rods do not occur immediately in action, the water evaporates in the cooling system and can no longer absorb the neutrons . These neutrons were therefore available to increase the fission rate in the reactor, which is super critical with power. The temperature rises, the fuel evaporated and the radioactivity is spreading widely. “

On page 385 we find the position:“The gas cooling is to avoid the risk of severe supercritical state …”

So the knowledge of the danger of a atomic explosion that can occur in a water-cooled graphite-gas reactor, is as old as the principle of the reactor itself.

Safety Assessment Principle 152 requires ‘The containment should adequately contain such radioactive matter as may be released into it as a result of any fault in the reactor.’ Clearly if nuclear explosions are possible a licence should not be granted. LAST PAGE: http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/91Gifford.pdf

# Would the people be aware that the Chernobyl explosion was an atomic explosion, it would attract the public to make a link between civilian and military atomic energy, which credibility and image of the nuclear industry would put an irreparable blow

# An atomic explosion in a reactor can rule out the provisions contrary to nuclear safety. Consequently, reactors should be shut down.

Once the atomic bomb explodes, it is gone. Once an atomic reactor explodes, it’s emitting radiation for eternity.

Forgotten: The 1975 version of Fukushima and Chernobylin Leningrad: Meltdown and 1.5 million Curie of activity got into the environment. Tons of liquid radioactive waste were discharged into the Baltic Sea by the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant (RBMK type like CHERNOBYL): http://www.greenworld.org.ru/?q=ang_lnpp1_main – two RBMK 1000 Chernobyl reactors are still running! Planned Shutdown: 2018 & 2020.

by Sergej Mirnyi, (http://www.mirnyi.arwis.com/) Engineer, chemist, liquidator at IPPNW congress Vienna 1996: http://wilpfinternational.org/publications/Tchernobyl_consequences.pdf – page 23: The picture of the contamination by nuclear tests over Nevada looked like an octopus. The image of the radiation on the reactor at Chernobyl Unit IV looked like a Radioactive Mount Everest, the top of the concentrated area around the reactor was around, from its center was a long, thin trace, a second was wide and covered the entire eastern Belarus.

AND: University of Innsbruck says Chernobyl was primarily caused by a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION – Page 1, left: translation: “… the one Nuclear explosion, and finally a meltdown followed by “: http://physik.uibk.ac.at/physik4/tschernobyl/2-Der_Unfall.pdf AND: “Some specialists are sure that after the steam explosion a nuclear explosion similar to an atomic bomb explosion occurred in the core of the 4th Unit .It’s power had to be much higher than power of the steam explosion. The conclusion of the authors is based on experimental findings established by studying of activities of isotopes 133Xe and 133Xem in the air that existed in the first days after the Chernobyl accident. Their study was carried out in the city Cherepovets that is about 1,000 km in north direction from the Chernobyl NPP.
The authors could find that the ratio of activities of these isotopes is the same as in the case of nuclear explosion.” SOURCE:http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Malko1.pdf —

I suspect nearly every analysis on the Chernobyl explosions to be downplayed. nearly every analysis talks about: 2,000°C temperature increase of the fuel. why? because if they stay at 2,000°c then they can remain their false statement of a “hydrogen-and / or steam-explosion”. the experts and scientist learned all their life, that 2,000°C is the maximum of fuel / melting / temperature increase during a reactor accident. But it is not true: reactors like the NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) – a NASA / NRC joint venture, can develop more than that: quote “Continuously measured the in-pile thermal Fuel Compounds conductivity of high-density UO2 fuel at temperatures up to 2,200 degrees Celsius.” from: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4533/Plum%20Brook%20Complete.pdf this sounds like this russian analysis that described the chernobyl reactor core as a rocket: “Two different models of the nuclear explosions are known. According to, the core of the Chernobyl reactor transformed to a turbo-jet solid-phase engine after a very short initial overheating of fuel. It flied like a missile from the reactor vault to the central reactor hall by the hydrodynamic forces of gas-phase streams flushing down from the fuel channels. Then it exploded as an atomic bomb in the spaceof the central hall.” source: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Malko1.pdf leading to: http://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/mikhail-malko-national-academy-of-sciences-of-belarus-nuke-explosion-at-chernobyl/

“I want now to the second Sarcophagus come to speak, because it does not serve to disguise a dangerous ruin, but for the concealment of dangerous lies. Since there are a lot of inconsistencies. Worldwide, for example, the version that 95 percent of the nuclear fuel still in there, and it posed a threat for Ukraine and for the whole of Western Europe. Tschetscherow has refuted this claim and it clearly goes from less than 10 percent that are still in there. He was commissioned in 2001 by the Kurchatov Institute, a research report related to the second Sarcophagus. He has investigated room by room, measured, photographed, core samples taken and has made its research report. He got a high distinction for it and the report ended up in a drawer forever! It interferes with the business.”

“Checherow and I went inside the destroyed reactor in Unit IV, as he is there crowled everywhere, even on the bottom of the reactor – accompanied by a small film crew.”

“And that he has worked in the surveying of the lower part there for five hours. He said there were only 200 tons, 20 tons, perhaps, but realistically is 10 tons. In the other case they would have been so dead as a doornail. When we were in there, that was an uneasy feeling for me. The sound of the instruments, no light, you had to watch where you step on this climb and you never knew whether or not the same as a concrete chunk falls down from above. There are a thousand different rooms accessible in these ruins, heavily damaged. At the bottom of the reactor pot, I’d say of them that some debris that have fallen down from the upper chamber. We climbed over it since. Under it’s even different rooms in which at some points even these elephants ‘feet’ to see the molten material. Checherow has shown us all and the movie people have taken it.”

“In the reactor pot was nothing. It’s all been thrown out with tremendous force into a short and violent explosion, which was so strong that it has lifted the 2,000-ton concrete lid. So the energy source is nuclear energy have been clearly and the explosion was a nuclear explosion! The Western world – where is yes, nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons which are completely different – wants to admit it, because otherwise would clarify that a nuclear power plant with a nuclear explosion can destroy itself. But in the textbook, there is a nuclear power plant can not. But it can.”

AN Kiselev, Chernobyl, 196, block 3: “Power of gamma radiation from a channel, lying on the roof of the third block measured by Zherdev was 2 Sievert per Hour (the limit of the measuring range of the instrument DP-5V ) at a distance of three meters” / “we had to work in an environment where radiation levels could exceed the 10 Sievert per Hour and even higher” / “As soon as the rotary drill bit to the fuel clusters, fuel chips along with the water got into the room , and immediately dramatically increased gamma-ray background” / “Biological protection of the camera has been redesigned in accordance with the requirements of radiation safety.” / “On the tube sites were about 15-20 tons of fuel. On the roof lay the whole fuel assemblies. Approximate weight of 300-350 kg each. The rate per person was calculated by removing 50 kg of graphite or 10-15 kg pieces of fuel rod.” / “the total amount of fuel in the lava-like clusters is within 20 % of the entire nuclear fuel that the reactor had at the time of the accident.” / “Checherov analyzed all the reports and minutes of the Integrated expedition with measurements and calculations. The analysis estimates the amount of fuel made on the basis of thermal measurements showed that this estimate was based, first on assumptions that do not reflect the real picture of the thermal situation in unit 4, and secondly, were based on experiments that are not based on reliable measurements, and voluntarist declarations of expenditure thermal parameters experimentally recorded variations of which varies in the range of up to two orders of magnitude.” / “The maximum thickness of the fuel accumulation , measured on the spot and recorded on the film is 0.5 meters , and if you increase the thickness of the layer 8 times, then this cluster should have a thickness of 4 meters.” / “At the time of the accident in the reactor core were 1,659 fuel channels withg 190,257 kilograms of uranium or its kg dioxide (UO2).” / “where, how much and in what state the nuclear fuel ?” / “Our reports of fuel found in the premises of Unit 4 was several times smaller, but the debate as to why such differences exist and where the truth is – was not gebated in this symposium” / “regardless of the fact that the reactor vault is empty and you can not see this amount of fuel and the amount of such fuel just could not fit in the observed areas, those who were there and personally saw it with their own eyes the empty space – you can not convince the others that there are not huge amount of fuel as declared by those who have not been there ” / ” it turns out that the minimum found fuel is 53 % of the fuel, and if we accept the second version, you still have to find the 91%!” / “People who worked there were from some other world view , spirituality , always ready to help and work with redoubled energy.” / “Honor the memory of the departed early in the life of heroic fighters.” http://www.souzchernobyl.org/?section=31&id=563

Chernobyl was a nuclear explosion in the yield of about 0.3 kilotons (there are nuclear weapons which are below this yield). Nothing, no architecture in the world could stand up to this. That the nuclear industry can not rule out a nuclear explosion in a reactor contradicts the regulations for nuclear safety. Consequently, all reactors should be shut down.

“Safety Assessment Principle 152 requires ‘The containment should adequately contain such radioactive matter as may be released into it as a result of any fault in the reactor.’ Clearly if nuclear explosions are possible a licence should not be granted.” LAST PAGE: http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/91Gifford.pdf

The knowledge of the danger of a nuclear explosion in a water-cooled reactor type is so old as the principle of the reactor itself

“Valery A. Legasov” – who was the first russian official who spoke about Chernobyl to the IAEA in 1986, and committed suicide. Before his death he made an audiotape, with untold facts about the Chernobyl explosion. Here are the abstracts of his tapes: “About the accident at Chernobyl” by Academician VA Legasov (text from the 4 cassettes) – in russian: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/Legasov_V._Ob_Avarii_Na_Chernobiylsk.pdf

The RBMK reactor at Chernobyl has prevented that the explosion was bigger, which would have made western reactors, because the total closure under pressure, the force of the explosion would have increased. The weight of the lid which was blown up was 2000 tons (was not welded). In England, at least one scenario exists for a nuclear explosion in a gas-cooled Reactor. Would be known in the public that the Chernobyl explosion was a nuclear explosion, the public would draw a connection between civilian and military nuclear energy, which would damage irreparable the credibility and image of the nuclear industry.

and Page 33, by Ross Hesketh and Jury Andrejev: Unit IV reactor had a design flaw that was already known in 1983: When lifting the control rods one would risk an extremely dangerous situation: the reactor could explode due to the emergency protection. Before the accident, the staff of Unit IV had sent a letter to the leadership of the Soviet nuclear industry: The potential accident was described. But the management told the personnel is not the possibility of a nuclear explosion in the reactor, although the Designers were aware exactly. This situation exists in every large Industrial plant in the world.

Hanford in USA: There is a similar, gas-graphite reactor – producing mainly plutonium, which is their main purpose.

That is the problem of Western reactors: The control rods are made of a material -> Silver-indium-cadmium. If something goes wrong, the control rods to melt first. it is likely that you will lose the control rods rather than the core.

Possibilité qu’une explosion nucléaire ait eu lieu à FUKUSHIMA:
Extrait des entretiens entre HATOYAMA ex premier-ministre du Japon et TAIRA, député.
(L’article complet est paru dans le magazine NATURE le 14 décembre (en ligne) et le 15 décembre (version papier)Volume:480, Pages: 313–314)”Another question that must be answered is what caused the explosions at the site. They were initially reported as being caused by the ignition of hydrogen generated by a high-temperature chemical reaction between the alloy covering the fuel rods and the vapour in the core. But, again, this has not been settled. Other possibilities include a nuclear explosion, or the ignition of other gases.Knowing whether a nuclear explosion took place is essential for predicting how much radioactivity might have been released, what it would have consisted of and how far it would have spread, as well as the state of the spent-fuel rods stored in a pool in unit 3. Two observations suggest that this is plausible. First, some metals heavier than uranium have been detected tens of kilometres from the plant. Second, the steel frame on top of the unit-3 reactor building is twisted, apparently as a result of melting.“Solutions for the Fukushima nuclear disaster must be based on the worst-case scenario.”Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) reported finding heavy metals such as curium-242 up to 3 kilometres from the reactor site and plutonium-238 up to 45 kilometres away. These isotopes are deadly poisons if ingested, causing internal exposure to radiation. Because 242Cm has a short half-life (about 163 days), and because the concentrations of 238Pu around the plant were much higher than usual, MEXT concluded that these radionuclides were not fallout from past nuclear tests in the atmosphere, so must have come from the Fukushima reactor. If so, they suggest that broken spent-fuel rods might be scattered around the site — a considerable hazard.Such elements are too heavy to have been borne in a plume, like the lighter caesium and iodine, so they must have been blown out with great force. Whether a hydrogen explosion would have been powerful enough to scatter heavy metals that far remains unclear. And a hydrogen explosion should not have generated enough heat to melt steel. Initially, TEPCO claimed that the explosion in unit 3 generated white smoke; on re-examination, the smoke was black, and therefore unlikely to have been caused by a pure hydrogen explosion. So a nuclear explosion is a possibility. Whether other explosive gases were present on the site would be equally important to establish.”

The end of the fast breeder program:http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Baverstock_How_the_UN_works.pdf
> In about 1980 Gian-Carlo Pinchera, an Italian nuclear physicist, showed that fast reactors were inherently unsafe. That single conference paper led to the almost total abandonment of the fast breeder programme. (…) he warned “beware the dying kick of the nuclear advocates.” This is what we see today but maybe they are not dying! quote by Keith Baverstock

The masters : Giancarlo Pinchera

Chemistry engineer, communist, he specialized in nuclear engineering in the USA , frequenting the Los Alamos laboratories which closed their doors to him in the middle of the Cold War.
Between 1965 and 75, he worked as a researcher at Cnen, the newly instituted National Committee for Nuclear Energy.
During these years he is in charge of security at the Casaccia Research center, at Superphénix project in France, and becomes responsible for Energy matters at PCI [probably Italian Communist Party].
He gets to know ecology litterature, from the Club de Rome reports to texts by Barry Commoner et Amory Lovins. Then arrise his first doubts about nuclear energy, with his thoughts about risks and costs linked to the atom policy and about the recurring Italian inefficiency. Then he drops his positions favorable to nuclear energy, which becomes one of the most discredited environmental techniques in Italy and abroad, until his death on 9/2/1995. Source PAGE 49: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/Superphenix-GianCarlo-Pinchera.pdf

The end of the fast breeder program:http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Baverstock_How_the_UN_works.pdf
> In about 1980 Gian-Carlo Pinchera, an Italian nuclear physicist, showed that fast reactors were inherently unsafe. That single conference paper led to the almost total abandonment of the fast breeder programme. (…) he warned “beware the dying kick of the nuclear advocates.” This is what we see today but maybe they are not dying! quote by Keith Baverstock.

Chemistry engineer, communist, he specialized in nuclear engineering in the USA , frequenting the Los Alamos laboratories which closed their doors to him in the middle of the Cold War.
Between 1965 and 75, he worked as a researcher at Cnen, the newly instituted National Committee for Nuclear Energy.
During these years he is in charge of security at the Casaccia Research center, at Superphénix project in France, and becomes responsible for Energy matters at PCI [probably Italian Communist Party].
He gets to know ecology litterature, from the Club de Rome reports to texts by Barry Commoner et Amory Lovins. Then arrise his first doubts about nuclear energy, with his thoughts about risks and costs linked to the atom policy and about the recurring Italian inefficiency. Then he drops his positions favorable to nuclear energy, which becomes one of the most discredited environmental techniques in Italy and abroad, until his death on 9/2/1995.

“In the early American development of fast breeders (1945 – 1959) considerations reactor neutrons with short lifetime (10 ^ 7 sec) played a large role (Bethe, Fermi, Teller), because with such rapid neutron lifetime, steep reactor excursions are possible, then because of its steepness in Principle for the release of large quantities suitable for mechanical destruction are likely”

“The set configuration of a fast reactor cores of principle neutron-physical reasons, not the configuration of highest criticality. Rather, a down or molten core, a core, whose center is emptied of sodium is to be well above critical. Then it could lead to the release of large amounts of energy, which of course come from the negative double coefficient itself clearly.

> Failure of the fuel rods by
Over temperature (melting of the shell) after 0.3 to 0.5 sec

> After drying out no earlier than about 3 sec (at the largest point
Power density occurs), a fuel melting. (…) Destruction of the fuel assembly structure can be expected if
power is not switched (ie after about 1 to 2 sec).

> In a boiling fuel vapor bubbles occur on individual,
their volume with a fundamental frequency of about 2 to 3 Hz oscillates.

> The maximum of the bladder volume is nearly the entire fuel assembly with
Steam filled.

> Few tenths of a second after drying of the residual film is at the
Dry the spot Shell wall temperature heated up to failure point.